ironic that the OP used an article written by Thomas Woods.
Woods is a fellow at von Mises Institute and a White Supremacist.
He co-founded LOS, League of the South and is a contributor to
the Ron Paul campaign and his PAC has done e-mail money bombs
for Ron Paul financing.

Supporting a proven racist and homophobic old man is also not a option.

Substantiation, please. I thought you and I had already gone around on this issue, and I have a hard time seeing how a man defended by the (black)
head of the Austin NAACP who has known him for a multitude of years, as well as had an openly-gay campaign manager during his last presidential run,
is a "proven racist and homophobic old man".

You're free to believe whatever you decide you want to believe, but you should not market such tripe as fact in light of actual evidence. At most,
you have editorial oversight on Paul's part for a very small portion of publications in his name - and an active public history arguing quite clearly
to the contrary.

We know you don't like him, but that doesn't mean you have to lie about him or act ignorantly or in childish fashion.

Interesting. I hadn't heard of Woods' co-founding the LOS, or being a white supremacist.

Granted, such doesn't discount any sensible views he holds, but would you be able to provide any sources on this, as all I can find about LOS on his
wiki page is that he was "present at its founding" (and nothing about him being a racist)?

I think that is the point.
It's satire guy. Stop being so serious.
I think you are indicative of the anti-Paul crowd, the media has you so afraid of Paul supporters that you think they aren't capable of having a sense
of humor. Obviously, we know that these are illogical conclusions to draw based solely on someone's lack of support for Paul, but it's a funny way to
outline Paul's ideology, which you would have caught if you weren't being so ridiculous and overly serious.

Highly educated racist if he is one. Harvard and Columbia. Not that that means he can't be, but I would say he has more things to focus on than being
a white supremacist with being a NY times best selling author. I don't think these people are quite as unsavory as you try to make them out to be.

Woods was present at the founding of the League of the South,[4] and has contributed to its newsletter.[5] His past membership in the group has
generated criticism,[6] but Woods asserts his involvement was limited

I am thoroughly in love with not only how you put words in our mouths, but you seem to be taking all of us non-Ron Paul supporters (or undecideds) for
absolute idiots.

It implies only those who support him have a functioning brain their heads.

The bigotry in this thread is just hilarious.

And no, my lack of support doesn't mean I agree with Obama or Bush...it means I hate politics and don't trust politicians period. If Ron Paul is going
to be a politician, act like one. If he's going to create a new version of politics, don't name it after a practice that consistently produces lying
snakes.

If he is what he makes himself out to be...call him a rights activist.

"Politician" leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth. So...don't accuse us of supporting anyone...we've just had enough of people going nuts over
politicians who talk and do nothing.

Prove that he'll do what he says, eh? Prove it, and I might change my mind. Otherwise, it's another paid puppet yapping away, and a bunch of gullible
sheep hanging off of every word he says. You'd think after a few decades, you might learn....

I found this funny.
(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.

And the most critical of posts.

A summation of some of the most profound words to come from Dr. Paul

Rush Limbaugh saying that republicans should be worried about Ron Paul b/c the media is giving him serious attention and they are taking him
seriously. (Is this what you have just seen?) He goes on to say the ONLY REASON why he is scared of Ron Paul is his foreign policy, he goes on to
describe Ron Paul's foreign policy then says nothing about why it's bad and then switches the topic to some vague discussion about Romney & Newt
that had no relevancy to the subject at hand. Way to befuddle listeners with uninformative propaganda!

@TsukiLunar, I don’t mean to enthrall the rage that burns in you so, however I have this need to point out that your cynicism is ironic. Saying that
these opinions and obvious generalizations which are of a whimsical manner have no factual basis, but in trying to deter the points you provide
opinion and no fact. Are you working for Fox News? I’m sure we can all find one account where in the support of Ron Paul’s opponents we could find
a factually correlation between all 26 points if not more, I’ve done one so far. Please feel free to tell my why I’m off base, because the sane
and rational need more reason to second guess myself. Also as a final note, and you may laugh, if Ron Paul is such a terrible decision for our
country, which candidate would be a reliable alternative?

Hate to burst your bubble buddy but RP is not going to win the nomination UNLESS he can win a few states.

Let the paulites come up with their silly articles. It won't make much of a difference.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Interesting, cause the News a few nights ago during the Nevada Caucus made it a point to explain how a Candidate could win by not winning any States
at all but by collecting delegates. I would think you are just a little misinformed

MODS please move this forum to Rant, since this is nothing but "opinions" of non Paul voters.....This has nothing to do with what the man stands for
or believes in, just a bunch of garbage put together from another campaign....

MODS please move this forum to Rant, since this is nothing but "opinions" of non Paul voters.....This has nothing to do with what the man stands for
or believes in, just a bunch of garbage put together from another campaign....

Nice try, but Ron Paul will save us as Americans......

GO RON PAUL!!!

HAHAHAHA

Maybe you missed the part where the article is Pro Paul? That is the whole point. I actually have to wonder if you bothered to read any of it at
all.

The article is written by a Paul supporter in a sarcastic tone as to what Non Paul supporters are "saying" by not voting or not supporting Paul's
ideas and positions.

I am thoroughly in love with not only how you put words in our mouths, but you seem to be taking all of us non-Ron Paul supporters (or undecideds) for
absolute idiots.

It implies only those who support him have a functioning brain their heads.

The bigotry in this thread is just hilarious.

And no, my lack of support doesn't mean I agree with Obama or Bush...it means I hate politics and don't trust politicians period. If Ron Paul is
going to be a politician, act like one. If he's going to create a new version of politics, don't name it after a practice that consistently produces
lying snakes.

If he is what he makes himself out to be...call him a rights activist.

"Politician" leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth. So...don't accuse us of supporting anyone...we've just had enough of people going nuts over
politicians who talk and do nothing.

Prove that he'll do what he says, eh? Prove it, and I might change my mind. Otherwise, it's another paid puppet yapping away, and a bunch of
gullible sheep hanging off of every word he says. You'd think after a few decades, you might learn....

Maybe you can explain to me how I, Mr Wendal, am putting words in your mouth by linking an article written by someone else?

You want proof that Ron Paul will do what he says? The proof is all around you. The proof is in his voting record which has been consistently in line
with the Constitution for 30 + years. The "proof" is in Government insiders tell you he can not be bought. Lobbyist do not approach him because it
does not do any good. That he can not be swayed, he will not cut deals. The fact is, the proof is everywhere, people refuse to see it. These things
are openly discussed on National TV.

But I will tell you what... I will play along. You tell me what you consider to be "proof" and I will do my best to provide it for you.

Quite simply because the alternative is to let the established bi-partisan, corrupt government bureaucracy continue to destroy the country and all of
us as they steadily have for decades. Can Ron Paul simply snap his fingers and fix things? No. But can he tell the American people the truth for
once and at least start the country heading in the right direction? I believe he can. Supporting the status quo (no matter what talking head they
put on it) is NOT an option. We are running out of time.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is very typical of the pro-Paul crowd these days.

I like most of what the man has to say, but his followers scare me to death, and they are the reason i wont vote for him. I have NEVER seen a
following deify a politician like this.

lol typical ignorance.

It sure makes a lot of sense that you're basing your decision to vote for a president not on his moral character, not on his record, policies, and
history but completely on people that he doesn't even know.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is very typical of the pro-Paul crowd these days.

I like most of what the man has to say, but his followers scare me to death, and they are the reason i wont vote for him. I have NEVER seen a
following deify a politician like this.

lol typical ignorance.

It sure makes a lot of sense that you're basing your decision to vote for a president not on his moral character, not on his record, policies, and
history but completely on people that he doesn't even know.

Yea, you shouldn't be voting anyways.

yup. i dont like ron paul so i am ignorant and shouldnt be allowed to vote.

Nothing wrong with this mentality whatsoever, and it certainly ISNT the type of mentality that Rp professes to be against.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.